Letters to the Editors

Our tax dollars shouldn't be used for the Olympics

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 14, 2000

Re: Olympic panel has buildings in mind, June 2.

I would like to offer a resident taxpayer's rebuttal to this front-page story. In summary, it reports how the organizers, headed by Florida 2012's president and CEO, Ed Turanckik, want to bring the Olympic Games to the Tampa Bay area.

Recently, John Timberlake, with the help of Sen. Jack Latvala, convinced our state legislators to take some 75-million public tax dollars to benefit professional baseball teams' spring training. The state also recently passed another measure for more welfare for the rich. As reported, "It puts Florida on the hook for up to $175-million, should the Games come to Tampa and lose money."

Citizens should not have to underwrite this Florida 2012 with our hard-earned tax dollars. Moreover, if you think this is bad, just wait. Turanckik already is advocating that "if we're going to build something that the community wants and is going to use, [Who says so, where is the evidence to support this claim and how about a vote of the people?] then there should be a contribution from the community." Tampa Bay residents, if you think your overall taxes are high now, just wait!

Remember the "silent majority"? We are those taxpayers who are sick and tired of our legislators taxing and spending on questionable, non-essential pork barrel projects that arguably benefit the interest and profits of commence. Many of us came to Florida after being told it was affordable and that the cost of living was reasonable for retirees on a fixed pension. These people -- along with the average working man or woman earning a much lower wage than their Northern counterparts -- should not have their taxes going for such wasteful endeavors.

Has any politician ever heard about saving our tax dollars to reduce our property taxes or lower our state sales tax rate? Please, let's spend our limited tax dollars the way we did in the days of old: on community public safety needs and other necessities that benefit the average resident, not more welfare for the rich.
-- Norman A. Lupo, Clearwater

Keep government out of sports

All of the litigation that has been spawned by the tax for the socialized football stadium is very entertaining. It is so entertaining that local Libertarians are wondering whether elected officials will pass another tax to subsidize regular litigation. The hearings could beheld at the stadium as part of the football games. Our local government might field a team of lawyers to regularly sue other cities in order to encourage local spirit and promote tourism.

Let me know when the tryouts for the litigation team start!

The preceding ideas (about socialized football stadiums and socialized litigation and their taxes) are considered dangerous and offensive by me and by anyone who is remotely Libertarian. Government should stay out of sports and sports facilities should be privately owned -- without any tax support.
-- Rex Curry, Tampa

Wealthy don't need this windfall

Re: House approves GOP plan to phase out estate taxes, June 10.

It's incredible that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to abolish the estate tax. Doing so will only widen the gap between the very richest in this country and the remaining 98 percent of the population. It will help perpetuate a monied aristocracy that will be able to pass on wealth to succeeding generations who do nothing to earn it.

I guess the members of Congress who voted to phase out the tax feel they can get away with this boon to our multimillionaires since it doesn't directly take money out of the pockets of the rest of the population. However, money is power, and the vast majority of U.S. citizens who are now not paying the tax will find their power lessened even more. Gone will be one mechanism -- and a relatively small one at that -- that has served to help level the playing field from one generation to the next.

If we want to do some good with our budget surplus we ought to cut taxes for single parents raising kids on a service-sector salary or cut taxes for teachers and others who are not paid what they should be. It is perverse to be cutting taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent of our population.

It just seems that the wealthy can never get enough. They ought to be thankful that they lived in a society that allowed them to do well materially. I urge everyone to write to Sens. Bob Graham and Connie Mack to voice your objection to another windfall for the wealthy.
-- Mark W. Brandt, Palm Harbor

Don't discriminate against the child-free

Re: Gore proposes tax breaks for child care, June 7.

As a child-free individual, I believe the government's propensity to target tax relief to those with children to be grossly unjust. Let me just go through a few of the extra financial burdens those of us without children are already expected to carry.

Our property taxes are used to pay for schools that we do not utilize. If single, we are not able to take advantage of the head of household status when filing federal income taxes. We are not able to lower our federal income tax burden by counting children as dependents. We are not eligible for the $500-per-child tax credit. As a result of employers paying for the health insurance of employees' family members, we essentially work for less compensation than do those with children.

Now Al Gore wants to give a tax credit to pay for the child-care costs of working parents. If the vice president wants tax dollars to pay to take care of children so their parents can go to work, why shouldn't the government also pay to put my dog in a kennel when I need to leave town on business? I am not trying to put my dog on the same level as humans, but the argument is sound. My dog cannot stay at home alone when I am away, and someone needs to watch her in order for me to do my job and earn a living.

Obviously I do not expect the government to pay to kennel my dog, but this points out the absurdity of Gore's idea. This new tax-credit scheme is troubling enough, but your article also states that he aims to give a child care credit to those who do not pay any taxes to begin with. That just sounds like welfare by another name to me. If that is his aim, he should cut the double-talk and say so in plain terms.

While I acknowledge that society does have a responsibility to ensure the safe and proper rearing of its children, the financial burden of doing so should fall on those people who chose to bring them into the world. Instead, the current tax structure forces the people who extract the fewest resources from the government to pay the largest percentage of their income in taxes.

Mr. Gore, please stop discriminating against the child-free. Instead, strive to institute a tax policy that is just for all. An across-the-board cut in tax rates would be a good start because everyone, whether they have children or not, could enjoy having a few extra dollars in their pockets.
-- Karl Adamson, Clearwater

Inane comments on Microsoft

Re: Post-Microsoft ruling and Protection from abusive techies, June 10.

In your June 10 issue you presented a very well balanced pair of columns regarding the breakup of Microsoft. The first, by Richard Schmalensee (Grip on Microsoft has consequence), pointed out that having the government's hand too strongly on the throats of innovators might damage our country's present lead in the development of new ways of using computers. The second column, by Thomas L. Friedman, praised the court's decision of breaking up Microsoft as a Protection from abusive techies.

I must take issue with Friedman's way of talking about things. First, he refers to Bill Gates as a "geek." Is this any way to treat an intelligent male? Being a "geek" myself (but at 6-1 and 220 pounds, a mean one), I'm flabbergasted by his inane statements.

And is the Sherman Antitrust Act really applicable in this day and age (with technology going at a rate much faster than the glacial pace of our law machine)? What our government claims it is doing is trying to promote competition. But this is at the expense of innovation, and the vehicle for doing this is a law passed when making buggy whips was still a big industry.

Also, the government has neglected to note that there is a remedy for Gates and Microsoft just a few miles north of their present location. They can move to Canada and get the heck out of a culture that ridicules any male who values his brains more than his brawn.
-- Milt Johnston, Tampa

They assumed the risk

Re: Four years, $60,000, a worthless law degree, June 4.

It is unfortunate that the Barry University of Orlando School of Law graduates may not be able to sit for the Florida Bar exam.

However, I have little sympathy for the students. Why? Because at the time of enrollment, those students knew that their school was not accredited by the American Bar Association. They knew that if nothing changed by the time of their graduation they would not be able to take the Florida Bar exam or many other state bar exams.

Legally speaking, these students assumed the risk. I do not see how anyone could spend three years (as is typical for a full-time law school student, four years part-time) and thousands of dollars for a law degree that is not recognized by the ABA.

Some of the students defend their choice of Barry by saying they could not get into the accredited schools, such as the University of Florida and Florida State because of low undergraduate grade point averages. My reaction to this is maybe they should have chosen another profession. Law is an intellectual endeavor, and undergraduate GPAs need to be high for law school entrance.

I, too, did not get into UF and FSU law schools. I received brochures from several unaccredited law schools in Florida and quickly disregarded them. My plan was then to apply to the smaller, lesser-known accredited law schools in Florida.

That worked: I was accepted at Stetson University College of Law, which was accredited in 1997 and remains so. I now am studying to take the Florida Bar Exam in July.
-- Ryan Hilton, St. Petersburg

Doctor deserves support

Re: A compassionate, courageous physician, letter, June 7.

I feel compelled to add to this letter of support for Dr. Louis Solomon. Being a neuro-surgical coordinator for the final 10 years of my career at All Children's Hospital, I worked many long hours in the operating room with Dr. Solomon. Since I had extensive contact with the families, I can verify that warm words of gratitude and praise were no exception to the rule. I saw how devastated he would be when a result was less than we all had hoped for, and how pleased and rewarded he felt when the results were as good or better than we had hoped for.

Research would show just how many surgeries were performed with absolutely no hope of compensation, or at most only nominal payments. It did, indeed, take courage and confidence in his considerable skill to perform some of the non-routine surgeries. Now, after a ridiculously high judgment, which will make some lawyers wealthy, and will not return a most unfortunately afflicted daughter to the father, it is my great fear that the children of this area may be deprived of the caring, skillful and courageous ministration of a dedicated physician.
-- Ernie Agnew, R.N., Retired, Gulfport

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.